Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation,, Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/31/17. (jsmi, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Eric Lorenzo Grant, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) 1 ) Nancy A. Berryhill, Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-914-BHH OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Eric Lorenzo Grant (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. On March 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action. (ECF No. 21.) On March 27, 2017, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time for doing so expired on March 27, 2017. 1 Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action as may be necessary consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge March 31, 2017 Greenville, South Carolina

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?